Roger Pearse

Good idea. (I was working from the linked images and didn't spot the second bit!)

I think it's pretty good. Here are my thoughts:

But Tatian, who also himself repudiated some letters of Paul, ... to Titus, ....; slighting the assertion of Marcion and others, who agree with him in this matter.

(agree in this matter meaning that they too reject some letters).

I see 'hanc vel maxime', and 'h.e.' (hoc est?) but I'm not sure what they mean.

The credidit (he believed) apostoli (of the apostle) and the awful gerundive pronuntiandam (requiring to be announced; agreeing with what?)... I don't understand this phrase.

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Again: there IS NO Titus preface. Jerome never wrote one.

What we're dealing with is a bit of his commentary on Titus. According to Ben's second link, from the 'Einleitung' or introduction to it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Searching for the Latin online brings up Lightfoot's Essays on 'Supernatural religion' which helps, interestingly.

So far from its being at all doubtful, as our author seems to suggest, whether Tatian was acquainted with any of St Paul's Epistles, we have positive evidence that he did receive some [273:3]; and moreover one or two coincidences in his extant work point to an acquaintance with the Apostle's writings. ...

[273:3] _e.g._ Clement of Alexandria (_l.c._ p. 547) gives Tatian's comment on 1 Cor. vii. 5; and Jerome writes (_Pref. ad Tit._ vii. p. 686), 'Tatianus, Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit.'

So in fact the "apostoli pronuntiandam credidit" must mean "he believed that it had to be pronounced apostolic (lit. of the apostle)".

h.e.=hoc est, 'that is'.

So that leaves 'hanc vel maxime'.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I have just a passing moment here....

The expression vel maxime is idiomatic, I think, and means in particular or some such; in this case the force would probably be to pick this epistle out from among the ones that Marcion and others had rejected. The word hanc is simply the feminine accusative demonstrative. The word pronuntiandam is indeed a gerundive, I believe, and agrees with hanc (with epistolam understood). So I would translate, based on what Roger and Hatsoff have done so far:

But Tatian, who also himself repudiated certain epistles of Paul, believed that this one in particular, that is, [the one] to Titus, was to be acknowledged as belonging to the apostle, slighting the assertion of Marcion and others, who agree with him in this matter [of rejecting Pauline epistles].

My two bits. Thanks, guys, for everything.

Ben.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

While we are in the groove on Jerome's prologues, epistles, and commentaries:

Here are references to a "spurious addition" to Jerome's epistle to Damasus.

http://tinyurl.com/yqnet9
Texts and Their Traditions in the Medieval Library of Rochester Cathedral Priory By Mary P. Richards
the spurious addition to Jerome'e epistle to Damasus.

http://webtext.library.yale.edu/bein...1600.MS402.htm
MS - 402 - 11th century
spurious addition to letter attributed to Jerome (Sciendum etiam ne quis
ignarum ex similitudine numerorum error inuoluat..., Stegmueller, v. 1, no.601)

http://books.google.com/books?id=sSELAAAAIAA (p. 73)
Gundulf Bible..
the spurious addition to Jerome's epistle to Damasus (Sciendam etiam), GB fol. 199r.

This is not the famous NT Prologue, dedicated/addressed to Damasus,
easily available.

http://tinyurl.com/yqnet9
The epistle of Jerome to Damasus (Novum Opus) GB fol 198b
The prologue of Jerome (Plures fuisse) GB fol 198v

The root of this designation of being a "spurious addition" may
be that the latter part of the epistle is not in some manuscripts.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eruxnZbxQAIC&pg=PA471
Codex Aureus MS Harl. 2788 (9th cent)
argumentum Evangeliorum "Sciendum tamen--solum est"
"a second epistle to Damasus, and is omitted both in the Vallicella and St. Paul copies."

John Chapman doesn't discuss either of these in his:

http://www.archive.org/details/notes...rlyh00chapuoft
Notes on the early history of the Vulgate Gospels (1908)

So.. is the actual epistle(s) on the web? Or in books ?
Or just in Latin scholarly works, untranslated ?
If so, best access method ?

And is anyone aware of the basis for considering the second
section as spurious ?

Is the second section written as a personal letter from Jerome and
supposedly forged by a later writer? Or perhaps it is a scholarly tack-on that does not add any personal component ?

Generally with sections considered spurious (eg. the longer Ignatius
sections, a Prologue of Jerome questionably considered spurious)
there is a rich history of dialogue about the designation. Yet here
there appears to be little.

Any assistance on this appreciated.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

For more context, the Damasus letters are given on CCEL and New Advent.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001.htm
Notice the (?) on letter 21.

Letter XV
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm
Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples ....

Letter XVI
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001016.htm
By her importunity the widow in the gospel at last gained a hearing ...

Letter XVIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XVIII.html
This (written from Constantinople in a.d. 381) is the earliest of Jerome’s expository letters. In it he explains at length the vision recorded in the sixth chapter of Isaiah, and enlarges upon its mystical meaning ... Jerome then speaks of the unity of the sacred books ... The letter is noticeable for the evidence it affords of the thoroughness of Jerome’s studies. Not only does he cite the several Greek versions of Isaiah in support of his argument, but he also reverts to the Hebrew original ... The letter also shows that independence of judgment which always marked Jerome’s work...

Letter XIX from Damasus to Jerome
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XIX.html
A letter from Damasus to Jerome, in which he asks for an explanation of the word “Hosanna” (a.d. 383).

Letter XX to Damasus
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XX.html
Jerome’s reply to the foregoing. Exposing the error of Hilary of Poitiers ... Written at Rome a.d. 383.

Letter XXI to Damasus
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XXI.html
In this letter Jerome, at the request of Damasus, gives a minutely detailed explanation of the parable of the prodigal son.

This may make it easier to correlate the epistles with the claim of a "spurious addition".

Shalom,
Steven

Roger Pearse

Agreed. Yes, I realised yesterday that *epistolam* must be the missing word with which both hanc and pronuntiandam were agreeing, but glad you beat me to it.

What does 'cum maxime' mean? (Which is an idiom, I know)

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

It should mean something like especially or to the highest degree, IIUC. But I think it also may have a temporal meaning in some contexts.

Latin idioms are not really my strongest point, and I certainly do not wish to give the impression that they come naturally to me.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Thanks! I think we're there. Interesting query.